Much Ado About Padilla v. Yoo
David Luban
from Balkinization
The past week has included a lot of blog action about the lawsuit Jose Padilla (and his mother) filed against John Yoo....
Three days ago, the Wall Street Journal’s editorialists ramped up the rhetorical level on their blog. To the WSJ, it is so axiomatic that the suit is frivolous that they barely discuss its factual allegations or legal theory. Instead, what captivates the hearts and minds of the WSJ is the fact that the suit was brought by attorneys from Yale’s human rights clinic, and Yale is John Yoo’s alma mater. The added fact that Padilla and his mother asked only for one dollar in damages plus declaratory relief proves that the suit is merely “a political stunt intended to intimidate government officials.” And Yale’s clinic – which the editorialists cavalierly identify with the entire “antiwar left” – is merely “a leftwing bucket shop.”
Of course, it’s hard to imagine any group devoted to international human rights litigation that the WSJ wouldn’t describe as a leftwing bucket shop, so we may safely let that one pass. And the dollar-damages issue is a red herring. Padilla’s lawyer explains that it was a client request, done to make clear that this isn't a greed suit. If Padilla had asked for twenty million dollars, would the WSJ have liked it better? Wouldn’t they have intoned their familiar lament about gold-digging plaintiffs in a tort system run wild? For that matter, what sense can be found in their argument that the low damages shows the lawsuit is “intended to intimidate government officials” (whose legal expenses, by the way, would be paid by the government)? Peter Lattman, claqueing on the WSJ’s law blog, congratulates his colleagues for their “amusing” lead and “zinger” conclusion; at least he has the decency not to applaud their logic.
The Yale non-issue is an even bigger red herring. On Volokh Conspiracy, the usually-acute Orin Kerr also finds the Yale-versus-Yale plotline “particularly interesting.” To the contrary: it is particularly uninteresting and irrelevant. Does anyone think the lawsuit would not have been filed had John Yoo graduated from a different law school? Or that no other law school’s human rights clinic would have launched such a suit? The basic point of the suit (regardless what you think of its merits) is to hold government officials accountable for torture and prisoner abuse – about as fundamental an issue of core human rights as anyone could possibly find. Any human rights clinic that wouldn’t at least consider filing this lawsuit would be asleep at the switch.
(Continued here.)
from Balkinization
The past week has included a lot of blog action about the lawsuit Jose Padilla (and his mother) filed against John Yoo....
Three days ago, the Wall Street Journal’s editorialists ramped up the rhetorical level on their blog. To the WSJ, it is so axiomatic that the suit is frivolous that they barely discuss its factual allegations or legal theory. Instead, what captivates the hearts and minds of the WSJ is the fact that the suit was brought by attorneys from Yale’s human rights clinic, and Yale is John Yoo’s alma mater. The added fact that Padilla and his mother asked only for one dollar in damages plus declaratory relief proves that the suit is merely “a political stunt intended to intimidate government officials.” And Yale’s clinic – which the editorialists cavalierly identify with the entire “antiwar left” – is merely “a leftwing bucket shop.”
Of course, it’s hard to imagine any group devoted to international human rights litigation that the WSJ wouldn’t describe as a leftwing bucket shop, so we may safely let that one pass. And the dollar-damages issue is a red herring. Padilla’s lawyer explains that it was a client request, done to make clear that this isn't a greed suit. If Padilla had asked for twenty million dollars, would the WSJ have liked it better? Wouldn’t they have intoned their familiar lament about gold-digging plaintiffs in a tort system run wild? For that matter, what sense can be found in their argument that the low damages shows the lawsuit is “intended to intimidate government officials” (whose legal expenses, by the way, would be paid by the government)? Peter Lattman, claqueing on the WSJ’s law blog, congratulates his colleagues for their “amusing” lead and “zinger” conclusion; at least he has the decency not to applaud their logic.
The Yale non-issue is an even bigger red herring. On Volokh Conspiracy, the usually-acute Orin Kerr also finds the Yale-versus-Yale plotline “particularly interesting.” To the contrary: it is particularly uninteresting and irrelevant. Does anyone think the lawsuit would not have been filed had John Yoo graduated from a different law school? Or that no other law school’s human rights clinic would have launched such a suit? The basic point of the suit (regardless what you think of its merits) is to hold government officials accountable for torture and prisoner abuse – about as fundamental an issue of core human rights as anyone could possibly find. Any human rights clinic that wouldn’t at least consider filing this lawsuit would be asleep at the switch.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home